


The New Review Criteria - June 2006

by HASA_Archivist



Category: The Lord of the Rings - J. R. R. Tolkien
Genre: Critical Essay, Other - Freeform
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2015-04-14
Updated: 2015-04-14
Packaged: 2018-03-22 21:49:15
Rating: General Audiences
Warnings: Creator Chose Not To Use Archive Warnings
Chapters: 1
Words: 3,809
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/3744665
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/HASA_Archivist/pseuds/HASA_Archivist
Summary: <blockquote class="userstuff">
              <p>The members gave the Capsule Revision Committee the mandate to make the capsules both more numerous and more specific.  A preview of the new Reviews Criteria is here.  The coding is in process and should be live in a few weeks.</p><p>Thanks go to the Capsule Revision Committee for all their hard work.</p>
            </blockquote>





	The New Review Criteria - June 2006

**Author's Note:**

> Note from the HASA Transition Team: This story was originally archived at [HASA](http://fanlore.org/wiki/Henneth_Ann%C3%BBn_Story_Archive), which closed in February 2015. To preserve the archive, we began manually importing its works to the AO3 as an Open Doors-approved project in February 2015. We posted announcements about the move, but may not have reached everyone. If you are (or know) this author, please contact The HASA Transition Team using the e-mail address on the [HASA collection profile](http://archiveofourown.org/collections/hasa/profile).

**  
A Quick Overview of HASA's Review Process –** (For a detailed and complete explanation, please see "HASA's Review Process – The Details" below.)

****  
Why we do it:  


> 1\. To present a wide selection of high quality fan fiction to the public.  
> 2\. To inspire our authors to keep writing fan fiction of this quality, and hone their writing skills.

****  
How we do it:  
At HASA our reviewers decide which stories come up to the standard of 'high quality fan fiction'. Everyone who has been a member at HASA for 30 days is encouraged to become a reviewer. Nine self-selected reviewers read a story and decide to 'approve' or 'decline' it for the Public Archive. Simple majority decides. Reviewers must select a standardized 'capsule' reason for their decision. There is a box where they may leave additional comments or sign their reviews.

**  
The Capsules:**

The capsules are organized into three parts - Literary, Genre, and General - that have complimentary options for declining and approving, and a fourth part called, "Please Consider Revising" that contains only decline options.

**  
Literary Capsules**

The literary capsules present aspects that are important for critiquing the quality of the writing. Choose one of these capsules if this aspect was the crucial factor for your decision.

> 1\. Characters, canon: authentic, consistent, true to Tolkien/  
> Characters, canon: generic, inconsistent, out of character  
>   
> 2\. Characters, original: believable, consistent, fitting for the relevant context/  
> Characters, original: unbelievable, inconsistent, jarring for the relevant context  
>   
> 3\. Character voice: consistent, appropriate style /  
> Character voice: inconsistent, inappropriate style  
>   
> 4\. Humour: appropriate, consistent and effective use of humour/  
> Humour: inappropriate, inconsistent and ineffective use of humour  
>   
> 5\. Plot: strong plot with good pacing; effective narrative techniques/  
> Plot: weak plot with uneven pacing; ineffective narrative techniques  
>   
> 6\. Setting: authentic; vivid descriptions: captivating atmosphere/  
> Setting: generic; stale descriptions: lifeless atmosphere  
>   
> 7\. Style: clear, expressive prose; correct, effective use of stylistic devices/  
> Style: cliched/too ornate prose, incorrect/ineffective use of stylistic devices  
> 

****  
  
Genre Capsules 

The genre capsules consider the story as a type. Choose one of these capsules if the presentation of the relevant type of story was most important for your decision.

> 8\. AU: believable and consistent plot, creative and interesting approach/  
> AU: unbelievable or inconsistent plot, jarring or unimaginative approach  
>   
> 9\. Canon: creative, correct and consistent use of Tolkien's works/  
> Canon: unimaginative, incorrect or inconsistent use of Tolkien's works  
>   
> 10\. Gapfiller: skilful, creative extrapolation, fits seamlessly/  
> Gapfiller: inconsistencies and contradictions, doesn't fit  
>   
> 11\. Genre: story enhances and contributes to genre/  
> Genre: story does not enhance or contribute to genre  
>   
> 12\. Non-fiction: well-researched; informative; coherent, clear structure; insightful/  
>  Non-fiction: inaccurate/perfunctory research; uninformative; weak structure; inconclusive  
> 

****  
General Capsules:

Choose a general capsule when the overall impression of the story is what mattered most for your decision.

> 13\. Middle-earth aspects: Tolkien's world comes alive: Middle-earth aspects integral and illuminating/  
> Middle-earth aspects: could be any fantasy world: Middle-earth aspects forced or irrelevant/trivial

>   
> 14\. Overall impression: story as a whole effective or generally remarkable/  
> Overall impression: story as a whole ineffective or generally unexceptional  
> 

****  
  
  
There are also some additional options for declining a story that have no 'approve' counterpart. If you want to say to the author "This story has potential. Please consider revising." you could pick one of these capsules.

> 15\. Accuracy problems: too many inconsistencies or factual errors  
> 16\. Completion problems: not finished enough to review  
> 17\. Grammar problems: excessive spelling/grammar/punctuation errors  
> 18\. Linguistic problems: excessive vocabulary or word choice errors  
> 19\. Technical problems: formatting difficulties  
> 

****  
  
  
  
HASA's Reviews Process – The Details  

HASA's reviews process has two aims.  

The first aim is to present a wide selection of high quality fan fiction to the public.

The comments in our guest book show how much the readers of our public archive appreciate the high quality of fiction, and the large number of complete stories posted there.

The second aim is to inspire our authors to keep writing fan fiction of this quality, and to continually hone their writing skills.

Unlike other moderated archives, at HASA it is up to our reviewers to decide which stories come up to this standard of 'high quality fan fiction'. Everyone who has been a member at HASA for 30 days is encouraged to become a reviewer. [/link to the relevant FAQ?]

**  
Ineligible Stories**

If you see a story in the review pool that you believe to be one of these things, you should contact the review admins[/link] and return it to the review pool without reviewing.   


The following are grounds for immediate rejection:  


> • Non-functional email  
> • Chapters with different story than described in story listing  
> • Lists  
> • Mystery Science Theater pastiches (MST)  
> • Real Person Stories (RPS)  
> • Plagiarism  
> 

**  
How to Review**

The Review Criteria are designed to help the reviewer come to a decision; but they are only a guideline, not a check-list with a score.

Every reviewer is encouraged to read the story before checking it out for review. This way you can review stories where your decision is clear, and avoid the types of stories you personally just don't like. Should you check out a story and then discover that you cannot or don't want to complete the review, a reviewer can return a story to the reviewing pool without accepting or declining. Simply click on the title of the story when you are in the 'Reviews' section, to see the "Return Story" button located to the right of the 'Select a decision' button, and you will be automatically removed.

After you have read the story, you will have to select a 'capsule comment' that gives a standardized, primary reason to either approve or decline a story. There are no gradations for the decision, only 'approve' or 'decline'.However, a declined story can always be revised and resubmitted. It is even possible to tell an author to "please consider revising the story".

There is a box for writing additional comments expanding on the capsule or giving more reasons for the decision. Comments are not mandatory. The authors may contact reviewers for a clarification of their decisions, but no reviewer is in any way obliged to reply.

The reviews process is not a beta-reading or an editing process, for which facilities exist elsewhere in HASA [/link]. However, constructive, considered and considerate criticism, and comments that contain explanations and suggestions for improvement are important for the second aim of our reviews process: to inspire the authors to keep writing and to improve their writing skills. Therefore it is not only important what you say in a critique, but also how you say it. Even if you don't think that this particular story belongs in the public archive, it is not the aim of our reviews process to discourage the author.

If you have never reviewed a story before, or if you would like to know more about critiquing in general, it might be a good idea to have a look at the Beta Reading, Editing and Reviewing Resources Workshop[/link], which contains useful material about reviewing and editing in general.

If there are any problems or questions, please don't hesitate to contact the Reviews Admins.[/link]

Remember, this is not a competition. There is no limit on adding new high-quality stories. Try to be consistent in your evaluation, so that you have the same standards in mind for each story you review.

Most of all it is important to accept a story because of what it does right, and not simply because there is nothing wrong or because it doesn't violate criteria.

**  
Notes for the specific capsules:**

Your decision will almost never be based exclusively on the reason in any one of the available capsules. Don't worry about that. Simply choose the capsule with the reason that was most important to you. If other capsules were also important for your decisions, please add these reasons, or even simply copy and paste additional capsules into the comment box.

The capsules are organized into three parts - Literary, Genre, and General - that have complimentary approve and decline options, and a fourth part called, "Please Consider Revising" that contains only decline options.

**  
Literary Capsules**

The literary capsules present aspects that are important for critiquing the quality of the writing. Choose one of these capsules if this aspect was the most important factor for your decision. ****  
  


>   
> **1\. Characters, canon: authentic, consistent, true to Tolkien/**  
>  **Characters, canon: generic, inconsistent, out of character**  
>   
>  Good characterization is essential for every story. Well-written canon characters come alive and do not remain static, pale copies of the originals. They remain 'in character' throughout the story. This means that canon-characters are based accurately on what Tolkien wrote about them. The way they change and develop in the story has to be plausible within that context. Effective characterization makes the reader care about the characters.

>   
>  _When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_   
> 

>   
>  How are the canon-characters depicted?  
> Why do they fit the spirit of Tolkien's works?  
> 

>   
> **2\. Characters, original: believable, consistent, fitting for the relevant context/**  
>  Characters, original: unbelievable, inconsistent, jarring for the relevant context  
>   
> Well-written original characters feel real and believable; they fit comfortably in the context of Tolkien's works. 'Rounded' characters are nuanced: They have strengths and weaknesses, they are rarely only good or only bad, perfectly beautiful or absolutely ugly. The way they act reflects their motivations and emotions; they are influenced by their family, their friends, their enemies and their culture. There are reasons for the way they fit or don't fit into their environment. The way good original characters interact with canon characters is convincing and feels authentic.

>   
>  _When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_   
> 

>   
>  How are the original characters developed? What is their purpose? Do they seem appropriate for the culture they come from?  
>   
>  **3\. Character voice: consistent, appropriate style /  
>  Character voice: inconsistent, inappropriate style**  
>   
> The character's 'voice' – dialogue, monologue, and the presentation of thought – is a vital aspect for the effectiveness of a story. The way the characters speak and think should feel 'real', and fit each individual character. Dialect and slang, the use of formal and informal, modern and archaic ways of speaking should be used consistently and appropriately. Punctuation and speech tags should be used correctly.  
>   
>  _When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_  
>   
>  How does the way the characters speak and think fit them? How does the balance of dialogue and narrative influence the story's effect?  
>   
>  **4\. Humour: appropriate, consistent and effective use of humour/  
>  Humour: inappropriate, inconsistent and ineffective use of humour**  
>   
> 'Humour' is being treated as a literary technique because it can be applied to any kind of story; a story can be a romance, a mystery, or anything else, and be funny as well. Humour should be judged like any other stylistic device, and a story containing humour should be judged by the same criteria as stories not written to be (intentionally) funny. The story should be clearly connected with Tolkien's universe. It's not necessary to be able to pun in Quenya for this. But a humorous story should be recognisably a story about Middle-earth, not just a generic place where jokes happen.  
>   
>  _When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_  
>   
>  How well does it express the aims and intentions of the author? Why is it funny?  
>   
>  **5\. Plot: strong plot with good pacing; effective narrative techniques/**  
>  Plot: weak plot with uneven pacing; ineffective narrative techniques  
>   
> A strong plot is clear and plausible. The story starts and ends at the right places. The author provides the information necessary for understanding the story at the right times. Conflict-crisis-resolution arc(s) present in the story, whether large or small, internal or external, are effective and believable. Narrative techniques - such as sub-plots, flashbacks, or changes in POV - are used correctly and contribute to the effect of the story.

>   
> If the story is part of a series or a WIP, it should be sufficiently engaging and structured that it should be worth reading even if the rest (of the series) was never presented.

>   
>  _When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_   
> 

>   
>  What is the effect of the plot and the structure of the story? How do the narrative techniques enhance the story?  
>   
>  **6\. Setting: authentic; vivid descriptions: captivating atmosphere/**  
>  Setting: generic; stale descriptions: lifeless atmosphere  
>   
> An authentic setting presents the geographical, historical and cultural details of Tolkien's world in an accurate and plausible way. Vivid, fitting descriptions evoke a feeling of the time and place of the story. The effect is a captivating atmosphere that fills Tolkien's world with life and draws the reader into the story.

>   
>  _When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_   
> 

>   
>  How does the author present Tolkien's world? What is the effect of the descriptive passages in this story?  
>   
>  **7\. Style: clear, expressive prose; correct, effective use of stylistic devices /**  
>  Style: cliched/too ornate prose, incorrect/ineffective use of stylistic devices  
>   
> The quality of a story's style is determined by many aspects. Good style means, for example, that a work is well-written, enjoyable and holds the reader's interest throughout, or that a distinctive style of writing contributes to the effectiveness of the story. Regardless of tone, good style is vivid and descriptive; it is not riddled with clichés, it is not too frilly, wordy, repetitive, or too bare. Good style is accurate and consistent. It does not mix formal and informal ways of speaking without reason. Old-fashioned or archaic phraseology or any other stylistic devices have to be used correctly and consistently. Last but not least, good style draws the reader right into the story and does not merely tell them what happens.

>   
>  _When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_   
> 

>   
>  How could the style of the story be characterized? What is the effect of this style?  
> 

**  
  
Genre Capsules  
  
** The genre capsules consider the story as a type. Choose one of these capsules if the presentation of the relevant type of story was most important for your decision. ****  
  


>   
> **8\. AU: believable and consistent plot, creative and interesting approach/**  
>  **AU: unbelievable or inconsistent plot, jarring or unimaginative approach**  
>   
>  An Alternate Universe (AU) story explores a storyline that deviates in planned and significant ways from what Tolkien wrote and should be evaluated on its own internal consistency. A good example for an 'AU story' has a believable and consistent plot, and explores the idea of Middle-earth in a new, creative, interesting way.

>   
>  _When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_   
> 

>   
>  How does the story explore an alternative to Tolkien's works? How do the new elements that are added to Tolkien's world fit?   
>   
> **9\. Canon : creative, correct and consistent use of Tolkien's works/**  
>  **Canon: unimaginative, incorrect or inconsistent use of Tolkien's works**  
>   
>  A good example for a 'canon story' is interesting and creative, and not merely a rehashing that has been done many times before. To be approved with this capsule, a story should be true to the spirit of the canon source and illuminate an aspect of Tolkien's works for the reader. Be critical, but please be careful: remember that not everyone uses the same definition of canon, that fanon is not canon, and that it is always a good idea to check your facts.

> _  
> When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_

>   
>  How is the story connected to Tolkien's works? What is the effect of the way canon is used in this story?  
>   
>  **10\. Gapfiller: good; skilful, creative extrapolation, fits seamlessly/**  
>  **Gapfiller: unsatisfactory; inconsistencies and contradictions, doesn't fit**  
>   
>  A well-written, useful gapfiller fills a plot hole or solves a frequent reader complaint. It fits seamlessly and consistently into the relevant context of Tolkien's works.

>   
>  _When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_   
> 

>   
>  How does this story answer a question left open in Tolkien's writings?  
>   
>  **11\. Genre: Story enhances and contributes to genre/**  
>  **Genre: Story does not enhance or contribute to genre**  
>   
>  Genres include, but are not limited to, poetry, drama, action/adventure, romance, slash, PWP, humor, or parody. A story enhances and contributes to its genre, if it upholds the structure and conventions of a genre in an interesting and engaging manner, and if you would not hesitate to recommend it as an excellent example of a specific genre. You should not approve or decline a story because of its genre; if you do not feel you can be a fair and impartial judge of a certain genre do not review it.

>   
> _When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_  
>   
>  How did the author capture the essential spirit of the relevant genre? (For example: is the adventure story really exciting? is the parody truly funny?) Why would you recommend it as an example for this specific genre?  
>   
>  **12\. Non-fiction: well-researched; informative; coherent, clear structure; insightful/**  
>  **Non-fiction: inaccurate/perfunctory research; uninformative; weak structure; inconclusive**  
>   
>  Non-fiction submissions are essays that explore Tolkien's works or their background, fan fiction as a genre or any academic topic related to writing Tolkien fan fiction. A good essay is well-researched. Its sources are clearly referenced. The text is clearly structured and easy to read. The argumentation should be coherent and conclusive, and offer insights in the chosen topic.  
>   
>  _When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_  
>   
>  What is the author's argument? What kind of insights does the text offer?  
> 

**  
General Capsules:**

Choose a general capsule when the overall impression of the story is what mattered most for your decision.

>   
>  **13\. Middle-earth aspects: Tolkien's world comes alive: Middle-earth aspects integral and illuminating/**   
>  **Middle-earth aspects: Could be any fantasy world: Middle-earth aspects forced or irrelevant/trivial**   
> 

>   
>  High quality Tolkien fan fiction makes Middle-earth come alive for the reader or illuminates Tolkien's works. The connection of the story to Tolkien is clearly visible and integral. The reader should not feel that this is original fiction that happens to be set in Middle-earth, but could just as well be anywhere.

>   
>  _When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_   
> 

>   
>  How is the story connected to Tolkien's works? What do the settings of Middle-earth or the spirit of Tolkien contribute to the story?

>   
>  **14\. Overall impression: story as a whole effective or generally remarkable/**   
>  **Overall impression: story as a whole ineffective or generally unexceptional**   
> 

> > It is important to accept a story because of what it does right, and not simply because there is nothing wrong or because it doesn't violate criteria. Occasionally, you just like a story; the good parts outweigh the flaws you can see. Or a story may simply not 'work', even though you can't quite put your finger on the reason why.

> _  
> When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_

>   
> **  
> **What is the effect of the story?  
>  Would you recommend this story to other readers? ****  
> 

****  
  
'General' also encompasses some additional options for declining a story that have no 'approve' counterpart. If you want to say to the author, "This story has potential. Please consider revising" you can pick one of these capsules.

>   
> **15\. Accuracy problems: too many inconsistencies or factual errors**  
>   
>  A promising story sometimes is simply not quite 'there' yet, not quite as good as it could be. This capsule is not intended to be used to evaluate the canon of a story. In other words: a person who prefers movie-based interpretations should not use it to decline book-based stories. However, if there are many small aspects where the story is not internally consistent, or if there are many obvious mistakes regarding canon or general facts (for example, putting the Shire south of Gondor, or having trees bloom in winter for no reason), this may be applicable.

> _  
> When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_

>   
>  Is the story generally promising? Can the problems of the story be fixed in a revision?  
>   
>  **16\. Completion problems: not finished enough to review**  
>   
>  Fan fiction archives are littered with good intentions to finish yet another WIP. In general, only complete stories should be approved for the Public Archive.

>   
>  _However, there are some exceptions. When you are reviewing a story with this aspect in mind, you might want to ask yourself one of the following questions:_   
> 

>   
>  If the story remained unfinished at its current length, would I not only be glad I had read it nevertheless, but be willing to recommend it to another reader as a good story? For longer works, you might also ask if the structure and theme of the story is already sufficiently developed to approve it. Does the story makes good use of episodes or sub-threads, so that they can stand on their own, or does it contain complete gap fillers that would make it a story worth recommending?  
>   
>  **17\. Grammar problems: excessive spelling/grammar/punctuation errors**  
>   
>  Correct spelling and grammar usage characterize good writing. A few errors are not a reason for declining a story. However, if there are so many they are distracting, or if they seriously diminish the impact of the story, it is appropriate to decline the story.  
>   
>  **18\. Language problems: excessive vocabulary or word choice errors**  
>   
>  Good writing is also characterized by appropriate and correct choice of words. It does not matter if it is a problem words that feel out of context, or words that simply do not make sense the way they are used, a few errors are not a reason for declining a story. However, if there are so many they are distracting, or if they seriously diminish the impact of the story, it is appropriate to decline the story. Eccentric and unusual vocabulary has to be used correctly and appropriately.  
>   
>  **19\. Technical problems: formatting difficulties**  
> 

>   
>  All texts should also be formatted in a way that makes them easy to read.  HASA's editing tools make it relatively easy to produce clear, readable text.  If the story is difficult to read due to formatting errors, it is appropriate to decline it using this option.  
> 


End file.
